|
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
In considering the alleged failure to assert claims under Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement, the Panel rules that: 1
“
e note first that the Appellate Body has stated that Article 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement are complementary and should be applied together in disputes under the AD Agreement. It has further stated that: ‘the word “matter” has the same meaning in Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as it has in Article 7 of the DSU. It consists of two element: The specific “measure” and the “claims” relating to it, both of which must be properly identified in a panel request as required by Article 6.2 of the DSU.’
Moreover, it has specified that: ‘in disputes under the Anti-Dumping Agreement relating to the initiation and conduct of anti-dumping investigations, a definitive anti-dumping duty, the acceptance of a price undertaking or a provisional measure must be identified as part of the matter referred to the DSB pursuant to the provisions of Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 6.2 of the DSU.’
In considering the arguments relating to Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement, we note first that Article 17.4 does not, in our view, set out any further or additional requirements with respect to the degree of specificity with which claims must be set forth in a request for establishment challenging a final anti-dumping measure. Therefore, a request for establishment that satisfies the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU in this regard also satisfies the requirements of Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement.
In Guatemala - Cement, the Appellate Body, after finding that, in the case of a dispute under the AD Agreement, the request for establishment must identify a definitive anti-dumping duty, the acceptance of a price undertaking or a provisional measure as a specific measure at issue, went on to address the question of the claims that might be included in a dispute under the AD Agreement.
‘This requirement to identify a specific anti-dumping measure at issue in a panel request in no way limits the nature of the claims that may be brought concerning alleged nullification or impairment of benefits or the impeding of the achievement of any objective in a dispute under the AD Agreement. As we have observed earlier, there is a difference between the specific measures at issue -- in the case of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, one of the three types of anti-dumping measure described in Article 17.4 -- and the claims or the legal basis of the complaint referred to the DSB relating to those specific measures.’
The Appellate Body Report in Guatemala-Cement indicates that a complainant may, having identified a specific anti-dumping duty in its request for establishment, bring any claims under the AD Agreement relating to that specific measure. That there should be a relationship between the measure challenged in a dispute and the claims asserted in that dispute would appear necessary, given that Article 19.1 of the DSU requires that, ‘where a panel or the Appellate Body concludes that a measure is inconsistent with a covered agreement, it shall recommend that the Member concerned bring the measure into conformity with the agreement’ …”
(ii) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement
Mexico also contends that the United States'' request for establishment is insufficient under Art. 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement because it does not indicate how Mexico''s final anti-dumping measure nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the United States under the AD Agreement, and does not indicate how the achieving of the objectives of the AD Agreement was being impeded by that measure. In considering this issue, the Panel rule in pertinent as: 2
“
e note Article 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement, which provides: ‘The DSB shall, at the request of the complaining party, establish a panel to examine the matter based upon: (i) A written statement of the Member making the request indicating how a benefit accruing to it, directly or indirectly, under this Agreement, has been nullified or impaired, or that the achieving of the objectives of the Agreement is being impeded.’
|
